Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;AirborneReams, post: 7327898, member: 114853&quot;]I see what your saying about the bumpy lettering and everything but the date looks very solid and so do the letters when I compare it to the “counterfeit” version. That version is very wavy. And also the “one cent” on the reverse looks very solid compared to the “counterfeit” you shared. If I just add the coin especially on the “one cent” has the longacre “doubling” affect on parts of it which I don’t think people that counterfeit coins have gotten down or spend the precise time to perfect. That was even hard enough for most of the dies to do back then as it would usually fail or not be all lettering. I also weighed the coin which weighs the exact weight. I do believe this to be authentic but most likely a MD (machine doubling) on the mint mark. It would be interesting to see what Rick would have to say though on what variety the MM is.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in